callimachus the hymns

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/callimachus-the-hymns 4/344
L L
L L
C A L L I M A C H U S
T HE HY M NS
Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by
Susan A. Stephens
1 Oxford Universiy Press is a deparmen of he
Universiy of Oxford. I furhers he Universiy’s objecive
of excellence in research, scholarship, and educaion by publishing worldwide.
Oxford New York
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico Ciy Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai aipei orono
Wih offices in
Argenina Ausria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guaemala Hungary Ialy Japan Poland Porugal Singapore
Souh Korea Swizerland Tailand urkey Ukraine Vienam
Oxford is a regisered rade mark of Oxford Universiy Press
in he UK and cerain oher counries.
Published in he Unied Saes of America by
Oxford Universiy Press
© Oxford Universiy Press 2015
All righs reserved. No par of his publicaion may be reproduced,
sored in a rerieval sysem, or ransmited, in any form or by any means,
wihou he prior permission in wriing of Oxford Universiy Press,
or as expressly permited by law, by license, or under erms agreed wih
he appropriae reproducion righs organizaion. Inquiries concerning
reproducion ouside he scope of he above should be sen o he
Righs Deparmen, Oxford Universiy Press, a he address above.
You mus no circulae his work in any oher form
and you mus impose his same condiion on any acquirer.
A copy of his book’s Caaloging-in-Publicaion Daa is on file
wih he Library of Congress.
ISBN 978–0–19–978304–5
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Prined in he Unied Saes of America
on acid-free paper
L L
My goal in wriing his commenary is o provide readers wih a convenien and accessible ediion o all six o Callimachus’ hymns in one volume, accompanied by noes sufficien or ease o reading. Ta such an ediion does no already exis is my jusificaion or underaking he ask, especially given he imporance o his poe and he ac ha he hymns and epigrams are his only complee works. In keeping wih Callimachus’ own saed poeic pracice his is no a μγα βιβλον; hus consrains o space have required a cerain amoun o riage: he linguisic,
merical, hisorical, geographic, and culic maerial I provide will necessarily lackhe wealh o scholarly deail provided by hose commenaries on individual hymns produced mainly in he 1970s and 1980s. Like all wriers o commenaries I have depended heavily on my predecessors, hough experience in eaching and in wriing on he hymns has led me considerably o reduce he amoun o linguisic deail (paricularly abou Homeric usage) and commensuraely o in- crease parallels rom ragedy and lyric. Also I siuae Callimachus’ diviniies as much as possible wihin he conex o cul pracices relevan o early Polemaic Alexandria and Cyrene. I have ried o keep always beore he reader he ac ha Callimachus was a poe; hus lierary parallels are seleced in he main or heir allusive poenial and reerences kep, when possible, o easily accessed secondary maerials. Te ranslaions do no more han aim or clariy and are inended o provide he reader wih my undersanding o he ex.
I is my pleasure o acknowledge he colleagues who have offered encourage- men, advice, and he generous donaion o heir ime in reading various versions o his manuscrip. Richard Marin has paienly enlighened me abou many Ho- meric minuiae. Jim Clauss and Alex Sens have provided commens on individual hymns, bu I am especially graeul or heir percepive advice abou rehinking he shape o he whole. Keyne Cheshire, Ivana Perovic, and Massimo Giuseppeti read and commened on individual hymns, and in addiion provided me wih heir own work in advance o publicaion, rom which I learned more han I can say. Flora Manakidou has very generously provided me wih her orhcoming work on
Preface
viii Pre a ce
he Hymn to Athena and wih a copy o her 2013 commenary. Dirk Obbink and Daniela Colomo very kindly aciliaed my examinaion o hymns papyri. Israel McMullin has given me he suden’s perspecive on wha is useul (or more ofen,
no); Jon Weiland has drawn he maps. Aaron Palmore and John Richards have helped wih he proo reading. Andrew Dyck has done an exemplary job o edi- ing and indexing (wha errors remain are my own). Mark Edwards has read and commened on he whole and been paricularly helpul wih he merical secions and in providing Homeric parallels. All o hese individuals have aciliaed he process o wriing his commenary. However, I owe a special deb o graiude o Marco Fanuzzi and Benjamin Acosa-Hughes, who have read hrough he whole manuscrip more han once. Teir learned advice has considerably improved wha
I now presen, and I hope ha in some measure i repays heir effors. Las bu no leas, I would like o hank he Press or heir paience and suppor.
8/20/2019 Callimachus The Hymns
Illustrations
1. Hieroglyphic or king o Upper (sedge) and Lower (bee) Egyp. Deail o he
Roseta Sone. © Te rusees o he Briish Museum. 68
2. Cyrene Apollo. © Te rusees o he Briish Museum / Ar Resource,
NY. 88
3. Chario carrying kalathos: coin, Caalogue 30.552. © Te rusees o he
Briish Museum. 276
L L
Greek auhors ollow LSJ, and sandard abbreviaions or periodicals and ediions o papyri are used, hough hey are someimes expanded or clariy. Callimachus’ ragmens are cied by Peiffer’s numbers, excep or he Hecale (cied by Hollis’ numbers) and hose ragmens o he Aetia no in Peiffer (cied by Harder’s numbers). Te ollowing abbreviaions are used hroughou:
Abbreviations
A-B C. Ausin and G. Basianini, Posidippi Pellaei quae supersunt
omnia (Milan, 2002). Anacreontea M. L. Wes, Anacreontea (Leipzig, 1993). AP Anthologia Palatina. Buck C. D. Buck, Te Greek Dialects: Grammar, Selected
Inscriptions, Glossary (Chicago, 1955). Bühler W. Bühler, Die Europa des Moschos (Wiesbaden, 1960). Chanraine P. Chanraine, Grammaire homerique. 2 vols. (Paris,
1958–62).
Chanraine ED P. Chanraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque:histoire des mots (Paris, 1968, repr. 1999). Dennison J. D. Dennison, Greek Particles. 2nd edn. (Oxord, 1950). D-K H. Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker , rev. W. Kranz. 6h
edn. (Berlin, 1951–52). FGrH F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin
and Leiden, 1923–58). Goodwin M W. W. Goodwin, Syntax o the Moods and enses o the Greek
Verb (New York, 1899, repr. 1965). Gow A. S. F. Gow, Teocritus: Edited with a ranslation and
Commentary. 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1950). GLP D.L. Page, Greek Literary Papyri , vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA,
1942).
xii Ab bre viati ons
G-P A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, Hellenistic Epigrams , 2 vols. (Oxord, 1965).
IEG2 M. L. Wes, Iambi et elegi Graeci. 2nd edn. (Oxord, 1989–92). IG Inscriptiones Graecae (Berlin 1873–). Kidd D. Kidd, Aratus: Phaenomena (Cambridge, 1997, repr.
2004). LIMC Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae, 8 vols. (Zurich
and Munich, 1981–99). LSJ H. G. Liddell e al. A Greek-English Lexicon, with a Revised
Supplement . 9h edn. (Oxord, 1996). M-W R. Merkelbach and M. L. Wes, Fragmenta Hesiodea. 3rd edn.
(Oxord, 1990). OGIS W. Ditenberger, Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae , 2 vols.
(Leipzig, 1903–5). PCG R. Kassel and C. Ausin, Poetae comici Graeci. 8 vols. (Berlin,
1983–2001). P. R. Peiffer, Callimachus. 2 vols. (Oxord, 1949–53).
PGM K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae magicae (Leipzig, 1931). PMG D. L. Page, Poetae melici Graeci (Oxord, 1962).
Powell J. U. Powell, Collectanea Alexandrina (Oxord, 1925). RE G. Wissowa and W. Kroll, eds. Paulys Realencyclopädie der
classischen Altertumswissenscha . 34 vols. in 68 + index and 15 supplemens. Sutgar, 1893–1980.
Rose V. Rose, Aristotelis fagmenta. 2nd edn. (Leipzig, 1886). Schmit R. Schmit, Die Nominalbildung in den Dichtungen des
Kallimachos von Kyrene (Wiesbaden, 1970). SEG Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum (Leiden, 1923–).
SH H. Lloyd-Jones and P. J. Parsons, Supplementum Hellenisticum (Berlin and New York, 1983).
SIG W. Ditenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. 3rd edn. (Leipzig, 1915–24).
S-M B. Snell and H. Maehler, Pindarus. 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1974– 75).
Smyh H. W. Smyh, Greek Grammar , rev. G. Messing (Cambridge, MA, 1956).
Spanoudakis K. Spanoudakis, Philitas o Cos (Leiden, 2002). rGF B. Snell, R. Kannich, and S. Rad, ragicorum Graecorum
fagmenta. 5 vols. (Götingen, 1971–2004). V E.-M. Voig, Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta (Amserdam,
1971). T. M. L. Wes, Hesiod , Teogony (Oxord, 1966).
xiv Ab bre viati ons
Te ollowing abbreviaions are used or Callimachus’ hymns: hZeus (Hymn to Zeus), hAp (Hymn to Apollo), hArt (Hymn to Artemis), hDelos (Hymn to Delos), hAth (Hymn to Athena, On the Bath o Pallas), hDem (Hymn to Demeter). Homeric hymns
are abbreviaed as ollows: HhDion (Homeric Hymn to Dionysus), HhDem (Homeric Hymn to Demeter), HhAp (Homeric Hymn to Apollo), HhHerm (Homeric Hymn to Hermes), HhAphr (Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite), HhPan (Homeric Hymn to Pan); oher Homeric hymns are cied by number.
Cos
Pella
Sparta
Athens
Thenae
Thera
Cyrene
Alexandria
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

M t. M yr t u s s a
Temple of
Zeus Olympios
Life and Works
Callimachus o Cyrene was he mos imporan poe o he Hellenisic age. He lived a he momen o ransiion rom he classical world o old Greek ciy-saes o he new oundaion o Polemaic Alexandria in Norh Arica—a megaciy ha atraced people o diverse ehniciies rom locaions hroughou he Medier- ranean. Faciliaed by his new environmen, Callimachus appropriaed he lierary pas and posiioned himsel beween poery as perormance in radiional
venues and he new possibiliies afforded by he ex. His poems conain explicisaemens on poeic aesheics, ofen consruced as responses o his “criics.” Wheher hese saemens were serious and sysemaic, or playul, and wheher his enemies were real, or ficional oils o dramaize his own aesheics, he was unique in his expression o wha consiued excellence in conemporary poeics. His insisence on his own poeics as “new” in combinaion wih his composiions in muliple genres provoked requen and coninuous imiaion among laer poes o boh Greece and Rome.
His was a remarkable creaive range. His poery included hymns, epigrams, iambic poery ( Iambi and he Ibis), an elegiac poem o 4,000–6,000 lines on he origins o culic pracices hroughou he Greek-speaking Medierranean ( Aetia), a hexameer poem o abou 1,000 lines on an early exploi o Teseus and he bull o Marahon (Hecale), vicory odes, and encomia o kings and queens. According
Introduction 5
and he firs line rom a poem ha seems o have been writen or he marriage o Arsinoe II o her ull broher, Polemy II (r. 392 P.), an even ha occurred
beween 279 and 274 . Callimachus also wroe on Arsinoe II’s deah (r. 228
P.), which ell in 270 . wo oher ragmenary poems now incorporaed ino he Aetia eaure Berenice II, he daugher o Magas he king o Cyrene and wie o Polemy III: he Victory of Berenice , a he opening o Aetia book 3, commemoraes he queen’s chario vicory a he Nemean Games in eiher 245 or 241; he
Lock of Berenice , which ends he Aetia , commemoraes her marriage o Polemy III Euergees in, probably, 246. According o he Suda , Callimachus also wroe poems (now los) on he Gauls (he Galatea) and on Argos (he Foundation of
Argos , he Arrival of Io), opics ha seem calculaed o suppor he sel-ashioning
o he ruling dynasy. 3
Callimachus’ connecion wih Cyrene and Alexandria is no in doub, bu asserions ha he raveled elsewhere are more problemaic. An Ahe- nian inscripion ha liss conribuors o a special levy o aid he sae includes he name Callimachus, wihou urher qualificaion. I has recenly been re-daed o a period well wihin he poe’s lieime (around 247 ), and hereore i may in- dicae his presence in Ahens (Oliver 2002: 6); Callimachus was no, however, an uncommon name a Ahens (c. RE s.v. Kallimachos 1–3).
Furher biographic deails are less cerain. Te Suda claims ha he was a
schoolmaser (γραμματικς) in he Alexandrian suburb o Eleusis (1 P.), al-hough zezes (14c P.) assers ha he was a νεανσκος τς ας (“a youh o he cour”), a rank incompaible wih he posiion o an elemenary school eacher. Cameron argues persuasively ha oher members o his amily were highly placed, including a number who were known o be Cyrenaic philosophers (1995: 3–5). Why or when Callimachus moved rom Cyrene o Alexandria is no known, and how long he resided in one or he oher ciy is equally unclear. Be- ween 275 and 246 he wo ciies were echnically a war. Probably his did no
require all raffic beween hem o cease; more probably exchanges coninued, aleas sporadically, especially in he long period o he berohal o Magas’ daugher Berenice o he son o Polemy II (c.253–246). Where Callimachus spen hese
years is no known, hough his poem on he deah o Arsinoe suggess ha he was in Alexandria a leas in 270. According o Ahenaeus (6.252), Callimachus recorded in his Pinakes ha one Lysimachus wroe on he educaion o Atalus. Te firs Atalus o Pergamum ook he hrone only in 241, so i Ahenaeus’ saemen is accurae, hen Callimachus mus sill have been wriing in 240, or even laer.
A conroversial piece o evidence or Callimachus’ chronology is he elegiac epinician or Sosibius (rr. 384 and 384a P.). Ahenaeus (4.144) claims ha
3. For he successors o Alexander, he Gauls had come o occupy he ideological space ha he Persians held in he Classical age; and he Polemaic house raced is Greek lineage rom Argos, see hAth Inroducion.
6 C A L L I M A C H U S
his elegy was writen or a Sosibius who lived and wroe in he cour o Cas- sander o Macedon. Cassander died in 297 , so i he idenificaion is correc, he elegy would be Callimachus’ earlies known work, belonging some ime in
he 290s, and his presupposes a birhdae no laer han 320–315. Mos scholars now believe ha Ahenaeus was wrong and ha he subjec o he elegy was he noorious advisor o Polemy IV, he Sosibius laer responsible or he deah o Berenice II. In his case, he poem could no have been writen much beore 240 and may have been as lae as 230. Te epinician (r. 384 P.) isel is ambiguous: in lines 39–41 Callimachus’ speaker remarks: κ δ διαου, | Λαγεδη, παρ σο
πρτον εθοφορεν | ε λ μεθα, Πτολεμ[α]ε (“we chose firs o win a vicory in he diaulos near by you, Polemy son o Lagus”). I he vocaive reers o he
living Soer, hen he poeic subjec mus be he earlier Sosibius, bu i he even recalled is he Ptolemaia , he esival esablished by Philadelphus c. 276 o honor his deceased aher, he epinician mus be or he laer Sosibius, and he aposrophized Polemy no he living sovereign bu he deified Soer heralded as proecor o he games.4 As a corollary, Callimachus’ birh would need o all around 305 (o accommodae he daing o hZeus o around 284) and his deah someime afer 240. In his commenary I ollow he laer daing.
Callimachus lived in Alexandria, a ciy ha had been ounded wihin a genera-
ion o his birh. His was no he ciy described by Srabo, who was wriing a heend o he firs cenury , bu a ciy in he process o being buil: high levels o immigraion, dynamic physical changes, and rapid growh would have persised during his lieime. Tis earlier ciy had some sor o walls (he firs menion o
which is acually by Callimachus in Iambus 1), palace environs, and he Museion (which may or may no have included he Library). Te lighhouse was buil beween 297 and 285; he sadium ( Lageion) was probably compleed by he ime o he Ptolemaia. Polybius is he firs o menion he heaer (15.30.4) and a Tesmo-
phorion (15.29.8) in connecion wih he evens o 203/202, hough hese may well have been earlier consrucions since documens reer o esivals o Demeer as early as 257 (Perpillou-Tomas 1993: 78–81).5 Callimachus himsel provides evidence or he Cape Zephyrium emple dedicaed o Arsinoe- Aphrodie and or Arsinoe’s moruary emple. Tese were likely o have been consruced afer
Arsinoe II’s deah in 270, and he later seems never o have been finished. Wihin his rapidly expanding civic environmen, he Greek communiy was
a diverse mix. o judge rom papyrus evidence drawn rom he res o Egyp,
4. See Fraser 1972: 2.1004–5 or a ull discussion.
5. For deails o Alexandrian monumens organized chronologically, see McKenzie 2007: 32–79.
for Helen and Menelaus ( Idyll 18) has close verbal parallels in he Hymn to Athena (F. Griffihs 1979: 89–90). Araus o Soli (c.315–240 ) wroe he Phaenomena , a didacic reamen o Eudoxus’ asronomy ha was subsequenly o grea influence
on Lain poery. He probably wroe in he cour o Anigonus Gonaas o Macedon, and he may never have been in Alexandria. Noneheless, he proem o Zeus and oher passages in he Phaenomena have clear parallels wih Callimachus’ hymns, even hough prioriy canno be esablished (Cuypers 2004: 102). Epigrammaiss rom a variey o locaions also achieved prominence during his period. Teir epigrams, ofen imiaing earlier sone inscripions, were beginning o be colleced ino poery books. Te mos imporan o hese wriers were Asclepiades o Samos and Posidippus o Pella. A roll o more han a hundred epigrams o he later, daable
o he lae hird cenury , was firs published in 2001. Te epigrams o his new collecion share many eaures in common wih Callimachus’ poery, including an emphasis on he ahleic vicories o Polemaic queens.
Apollonius o Rhodes, whose surviving poem is he epic Argonautica , is hough o have been a naive Alexandrian and a slighly younger conemporary o Callimachus. He ollowed Zenodous as head o he Alexandrian Library. Te Suda makes him Callimachus’ μαθητς ( 11a P.). Few scholars believe Apol- lonius was in ac Callimachus’ pupil, bu he erm does imply a degree o arisic
closeness ha is borne ou by he poems. A ew examples will suffice o illusraehe relaionship beween he Argonautica and he hymns: Apollonius’ poem has a hymnic opening and closing (1.1–2 and 4.1773–81); he beginning o he Ar-
gonautica includes reerences o Zeus, Apollo, and Aremis (1.508–9, 536–39, 569–72) ha parallel momens in Callimachus’ firs hree hymns respecively; he scene o Zeus’s childhood on Cree appears wice, once in he conex o Orpheus’ cosmogony (1.508–9) and hen a he opening o book 3. Aphrodie’s descripion o he ball given o Zeus by his nurse Adraseia includes several allu-
sions o hZeus
(e.g., 3.134: τι νπια κουρζοντι = hZeus
54: μ σεο κουρζοντος);finally, he narraives o Paraebius and o Phineus in book 2 are parallel o he paired narraives o hAth and hDem , see p. 22.7
Te exac chronology o Callimachus’ conemporaries will coninue o be dispued, no leas because hey evidenly wroe in response o each ohers’ exs. Bu we know so litle abou sraegies o poeic exchange—wheher inormal or public—ha asserions abou allusive prioriy mus be made wih exreme cau- ion. Te obviously shared subjec mater o hese poes indicaes a rich and very ineracive poeic environmen, while also suggesing he growing imporance o he ex as a viable poeic and ideological medium.
7. See Sephens 2003: 200–10 (on hZeus, hAp); Köhnken 2003 (on hAp, hDelos); Eichgrün 1961: 111–18 (on hArt ).
Te Hymnic radition and Callimachus’ Hymns
Hymns were among he oldes and mos enduring elemens in wha comes o
be he Greek poeic reperory. Hymns survive on sone and in manuscrips rom he earlies recorded wriing o he end o aniquiy. Tey ake many orms over ime, and share many eaures wih choral song; in essence, hey were ormal addresses o a god or group o gods on behal o a communiy. Ta address could call upon he god in he second person (someimes called Du-Stil) or speak abou he god in he hird person (someimes called Er-Stil), or speak in he firs person on behal o he group. Hymns may have been sung by a communal group in unison, or perormed by a chorus wih musical accompanimen and dance, or
perormed by a solo singer. Tey migh even be in prose like he so-called Isis arealogies.
radiionally, scholars have divided hymns ino culic, rhapsodic, and lierary, depending on he assumed conex o perormance and audience. Culic hymns
were sung and/or danced perormances or specific deiies and in specific locaions (e.g., he Palaikasro hymn o Zeus, paeans o Apollo a Delphi). o he exen ha hey survive, hey were inscribed on sone (like he Palaikasro hymn) or cied in a laer Greek auhor (see, or example, he hymn cied by Aelian, which
is discussed in he inroducion o hAth). Hymnlike lyric monody can be oundin he archaic poes (e.g., Sappho, Alcaeus, Alcman, Pindar, Bacchylides), hough scholars are divided abou wheher hey were perormed in culic environmens in real ime (see, e.g., Ahanassaki 2009: 242–43). Hymns were also a prominen eaure wihin he choruses o Greek ragedy and comedy, and hese examples, alhough removed rom local perormance, are helpul in undersanding he srucure and ubiquiy o he genre (see, e.g., Swif 2010). Cul hymns vary in lengh: many are under hiry lines; ohers well over a hundred. Bu he ormal elemens
o all ypes o hymns are more or less consisen, which promps he ollowingschemaic:8
1. Te invocaion (epiklesis), or summoning o he diviniy. Te name will naurally occur a he beginning o a hymn, accompanied by relevan cul iles and epihes. In his ormal opening here may be a genealogy ha links he god o a paricular place (see, e.g., hZeus 5–14), and companion deiies may also be menioned.
2. Praise o he diviniy (eulogia, euphemia). Tis has various pars ha may be more or less elaboraed. Tey include a lising o he god’s
8. See Furley and Bremer 2001: 1.1–64 or a ull discussion o hymnic orms, and hroughou or examples o Greek hymns.
unique powers, reminders o pas benefis ha he god has conerred on worshippers, a narraive o he god’s birh and relevan deeds o prowess (e.g., killing he Pyho, deeaing he Gians), descripions o
he god’s avorie locales and aciviies, inerspersed hroughou wih repeaed addresses.
3. Te prayer. Usually inroduced by χαρε or oher orm o χαρω, i expresses he communiy’s graiude, or which i hopes or avor in reurn (see, e.g., hZeus 91–94). Tis secion may include imperaives o summon he god o appear.9
In addiion o culic, lyric, and dramaic hymns, hiry-hree hexameer hymns
in an epic dialec were ransmited under he name o Homer, hough composiional daes and provenances vary.10 Te majoriy o hem are quie shor (3–22 lines), bu here are six major hymns ranging in size rom ory-nine lines (o Pan) o 580 lines (o Hermes). Tere is also a Hymn to Dionysus , rom which abou sixy o he original 400+ lines survive (see Wes 2011: 29–43). Tis hymn seems o have opened he collecion in he manuscrip radiion. Mos o hese hymns begin by naming he god in he hird person, or calling upon he Muses o help he singer bes hymn he god, hough he hymns o Dionysus and Apollo
open wih a Du-Stil address o he god himsel. Homeric hymns coninue wihhe sandard atenion o he god’s birh, naure, and deeds, he narraives o which in he hymns o Dionysus, Demeer, Apollo, Hermes, and Aphrodie have been expanded over several hundred lines. Tey close wih a greeing o he god (a his juncure he poe ofen uses he firs person) and may call or anoher song (see, e.g., HhAphr 292–93: χαρε, θε, Κπροιο κτιμνης μεδουσα | σε δ’ γ ρξμενος μεταβσομαι ον ες μνον [“Hail, goddess, guardian o well-culi-
vaed Cyprus. Having begun wih you, I will urn o anoher hymn”]). Tey will
someimes have inernal reerences o perormance (see, e.g., HhAp
171–78).Homeric hymns are hough no o have been composed or a specific culic even, bu are classified as “rhapsodic,” rom he pracice in rhapsodic perormance o beginning wih a prooimion or prelude o he main even wih a hymn (see Pi. Nem. 2.1–5; [Plu.] De musica 6.1133). Te likely locaion or perormance o hese hymns would have been rhapsodic compeiions a Panhellenic ceners and also, as J. S. Clay (1989: 3–16) has suggesed, a banques. Tese
9. Menander Rheor (1.333–44 Russell-Wilson) divides hymns ino eigh ypes, he mos significan o which are cleic (conaining invocaions o he god); scienific, i.e., hose writen by philosophers expounding he naure o he deiy; myhological; and genealogical. Elemens rom all o hese ypes may be ound in Callimachus’ hymns.
10. See Faulkner 2011b: 7–16 or a discussion o daing o he individual hymns. In his view almos all would have been writen by 300 , and hus available o Callimachus.
or where he hymns were or could have been perormed.13 Wha conuses he mater is ha Callimachus seems, as a composiional sraegy, deliberaely o blur he dis- incion beween a one-ime real perormance even and a careully conrived fic-
ion. He posiions his poems o be boh he mimesis o a specific even, as he culic hymns seem o be, and he ex ha firs creaes, hen enables he coninual recre- aion o he even (see Acosa-Hughes and Sephens 2012: 145–47). Finally he exen o which mimicry was already incorporaed in ancien riual pracices, paricularly processions (see, e.g., Connelly 2007: 104–15), migh be significan or Cal- limachus’ composiional syle, especially in he case o he mimeic hymns.
Tere can be no doub ha Callimachus consciously engages in a lierary recol- lecion o earlier poeic pracice. In his reamen o culs in he hymns he adaps
a lyric or hymnic persona, as he occasion demands. Bu he culic inormaion in each o hese hymns, insoar as we can judge, accuraely reflecs conemporary reli- gious pracices. Cerainly he locaions Callimachus chooses o menion are ofen cul ceners o he deiy in quesion ha are newly creaed or have been recenly revived (e.g., M. Lycaeon in hZeus, Ephesus in hArt ). I is also imporan o realize ha archaeologiss and scholars o ancien religion ofen rely upon Callimachus’ hymns or local culic inormaion. While his by no means guaranees ha Calli- machus’ inormaion is accurae, i does guaranee ha expers have no ound i o
be in error or o conradic wha physical remains can ell hem. 14
Tere coninuedo be a wide range o perormance pracices in he early Hellenisic period—esablished esivals like he Cyrenean Carneia , newly esablished esivals in Polemaic
Alexandria (e.g., Basileia, Ptolemaia, Arsinoeia), coninuing radiions o rhapsodic perormance, and symposia o he Successors—a which Callimachus’ hymns could have been perormed, alhough his is no o say ha hey were.
Te Hymns as a Collection
Wheher i is Callimachus himsel who is responsible or a laer edior, he hymns give every indicaion o being a careully arranged collecion a boh ormal and hemaic levels.
Te six hymns all ino hree pairs. HZeus and hAp locae heir diviniies respecively in Alexandria and Cyrene and insis on he closeness o he wo di-
viniies—Apollo (hAp 29) sis a he righ hand o Zeus. Tese wo, more han
13. For a summary o he debae wih relevan bibliography see Perovic 2011: 264–65. Huner and Fuhrer 2002 and Vamvouri Ruffy 2004 discuss he heology o Callimachus’ hymns in he conex o early Polemaic Alexandria; Perovic 2007, 2011 in erms o conemporary culic pracices.
14. See, e.g., Billo 1997–98 on Argive legends or Laronde 1987: 362–65 on he Carneia.
Introduction 13
he ohers, ocus on one specific area o concern or he diviniy: kings or Zeus and song or Apollo. Boh eaure movemen rom norh o souh. Te win children o Leo—Aremis and Apollo—are he subjecs o he nex wo hymns,
which are also he longes. Boh diviniies move rom he cenral o he easern Medierranean and boh hymns end wih vignetes o cul-sies imporan o he Polemies—Ephesus and Delos respecively. Boh porray hese cul-sies as under atack and successully deended. Boh are alive wih culic song and dance. Te final pair eaure Ahena and Demeer in closely parallel narraives (see Hopkin- son’s very ull analysis, pp. 13–17). Boh are mimeic wih insered ales o young men rom whom he goddess exacs reribuion: Ahena akes away he sigh o iresias or accidenally seeing her as she bahed in he wild; Demeer punishes
Erysichhon or deliberaely rying o cu down her sacred ree. In conras o he firs our hymns writen in epic Ionic, hese wo are in he Doric dialec.
Callimachus’ hymns reflec he Homeric hymns in he ollowing ways: he opening o he firs hymn, hZeus , echoes he opening o he now ragmenary HhDion , which may have been he firs hymn in he earlier collecion, while he pre- cociy o Zeus owes somehing o HhHerm. HArt depends on HhAp or is overall srucure: like he earlier hymn, i alls ino wo pars, he firs o which seems o provide closure, afer which he hymn begins again. HhPan has influenced he Ar-
cadian secion o his hymn. HDelos reflecs he Delian porion o HhAp. HDem exiss in counerpoin wih HhDem , and hAth wih HhAphr. Finally, hAp reprises momens in HhAp , bu is Cyrenean ocus and paeanlike rerain makes i he leas “Homeric” o he hymns. (See urher Acosa-Hughes and Cusse 2012.)
Te order o he individual hymns describes an arc, wih he wo longes in he cener; heir respecive lenghs are: 96 lines, 113 lines, 268 lines, 326 lines, 142 lines, and 138 lines. Hymns or wo male diviniies open, hymns or wo emale diviniies close he group, and hymns devoed o Aremis and Apollo and heir
moher Leo occupy he cener. wo-hirds o he way hrough he collecion wefind Apollo prophesying he birh o Polemy II on Cos and his subsequen rule over Egyp (hDelos 162–70). Te mimeic and non-mimeic hymns are loosely inerwoven: non-mimeic (hZeus), mimeic (hAp), non-mimeic (hArt ), non- mimeic (hDelos), mimeic (hAth), and mimeic (hDem).
Te middle our all have large narraive secions on specific culs—Cyrene, Ephesus, Delos, Argos; he flanking wo do no, hough hZeus is surely or Al- exandria, and hDem is, according o he scholias, also or Alexandria, hough a number o scholars have argued or oher locaions (see p. 266). I he firs and las are cenered on Alexandria, however, ha migh accoun or heir flanking posiions and perhaps or heir lack o local specificiy.
Te firs our insis on he divine amily o Zeus, Leo, and heir wins. Hera, when she does appear, is hosile o boh moher and children. Zeus poinedly remarks, “When goddesses would bear me such children as his, I would have litle
concern or he jealousy o an angry Hera” (hArt 29–31). Her wrahul pursui o he pregnan Leo hroughou he Medierranean prevens Apollo’s birh. Te narraives include birh sories (hZeus, hDelos), diviniies growing ino heir ma-
uriy (hZeus, hAp, hArt ); virgin goddesses (hArt, hAth); goddesses punishing ransgressors (hArt, hAth, hDem). Maerniy is a srong heme in he las hree; ahers and sons o a lesser exen in hZeus and hDem.
Te hymns show a large number o unique verbal repeiions beween one anoher. Tese have been mos recenly sudied by Ukleja 2005: 21–108, and many are indicaed in he noes below.
Te Hymns and the Ptolemies
When Polemy I Soer became king o Egyp, he was required o rule wo dis- incly differen populaions: ehnic Greeks and Greek-speakers immigraing ino he new ciy o Alexandria and he much larger naive Egypian populaion o he chora. He solidified his hold exernally by engaging in sraegic alliances and occasional wars wih his ellow Diadochs, while inernally he suppored naive prieshoods in he building o Egypian emples and engaged
in he riuals ha were essenial o Egypian belie. Te pharaoh was he liaison beween he human and divine spheres and responsible or cosmic and social order. Ta he Polemies ruled heir Egypian subjecs as pharaohs is abun- danly clear rom rilingual inscripions like he Pihom Sele and he Roseta Sone. Te ciy o Alexandria incorporaed Egypian culs, such as ha o Isis, and Egypian ariacs seem o have been impored o adorn i. Polemy II, or example, impored an obelisk or his siser-wie’s unerary emple and he oundaions o he Serapeium had inscripions in hieroglyphics as well as
Greek. Callimachus’ hymns (and Teocrius’ Idylls 15, 17, and 24) include re-erences no only o he Polemies in heir role as Greek sovereigns bu also elemens ha parallel myhs cenral o pharaonic ideology (hese are indicaed in he noes on individual hymns). Below is a lis o hose Polemies who figure in discussion o he hymns, wheher in Greek or Egypian hisorical conex.
Ptolemy I (Soter) c.367–283, the son of Lagus. He was one o Alexander’s gen- erals, who claimed Egyp as his porion in he division o he empire a Alexan-
der’s deah in 323 . He had a number o children by Eurydice, he daugher o Anipaer, including several sons. However, he divorced Eurydice and married Berenice I, who gave him a leas our children, hree o whom are imporan or he hymns: Arsinoe II, Polemy II, and Philoera. He was deified wih Berenice I as Teoi Soteres afer his deah.
Introduction 15
Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) 308–246. He was he son o Polemy I and Berenice I. Te younges o Polemy’s sons, he inheried he hrone in preerence o his older
brohers. He firs married Arsinoe I, he daugher o Lysimachus o Trace. Te
marriage produced a number o children, including Polemy III (Euergees) and Berenice Syra. He hen married his ull siser, Arsinoe II. He and Arsinoe were deified afer 270 as Teoi Adelphoi.
Arsinoe II 316–270. She was daugher o Polemy I and Berenice I. She was firs married o Lysimachus o Trace rom 300/299 unil his deah in 281. Ten
briefly, and disasrously, o her hal-broher Polemy Ceraunus (he son o Pol- emy I and Eurydice, and someime king o Macedon), who was insrumenal in
killing her children by Lysimachus. Afer hese evens she reurned o Egyp and married her ull broher someime beween 279 and 274. She died in 270 and
was deified. Te emple a Cape Zephyrium, abou 15 miles eas o Alexandria, was buil in her honor; here she was worshipped as Arsinoe-Aphrodie. She was widely worshipped hroughou Egyp proper, being co-empled wih naive gods. During her broher-husband’s reign a number o ciies hroughou he Medier- ranean were renamed “Arsinoe” in her honor.15
Philotera d. 272? She was he ull siser o Polemy II and Arsinoe II. She diedshorly beore Arsinoe II and was deified, and perhaps co-empled wih her siser in Alexandria (see Fraser 1972: 2.377n314). She is associaed wih Demeer in Callimachus’ Ektheosis of Arsinoe (r. 228.43–45 P.). A number o owns were named afer her.
Magas of Cyrene c.317 to 250. Te son o Berenice I and a Philip o Mace- don, he ruled Cyrene as regen or his sepaher, hen Polemy II, beore he re-
voled o become is sole ruler around 275 . His daugher, Berenice II, was berohed o Polemy III Euergees and, afer Magas’ deah, was finally married o him in 246.
Ptolemy III (Euergetes) c.284–222. He was associaed wih his aher as co- regen and was sole ruler o Egyp rom 246 o 222. He was berohed o Berenice II or several years beore he marriage in 246.
Berenice Syra c.280–246. Te daugher o Polemy II and Arsinoe I, she was called “Syra” because o her marriage o he Seleucid king, Aniochus II, who had
15. For a recen biography o his queen see Carney 2013.
divorced his firs wie Laodice in order o marry her. Aniochus was murdered shorly afer he deah o Polemy II in 246. Berenice claimed he regency or her son, bu hey were quickly murdered. Posidippus has writen a number o
epigrams or her vicories in chario-racing a he Panhellenic games.16
Berenice II 267/266–222. Te daugher o Magas o Cyrene, she married Polemy III. She is eaured in wo o Callimachus’ poems—he Victory of Berenice (celebraing her chario vicory a he Nemean games) and he Lock of Berenice (a dedicaion or he sae reurn o her husband rom he Syrian war). Tese poems open he hird and close he ourh book o he Aetia. She was murdered a he insigaion o her son, Polemy IV.17
Dating the Hymns
I he hymns were an auhorially organized collecion, hey do no appear o have been writen a he same ime. A a conservaive esimae, here seems o be a range o five o en years beween hZeus and hDelos , and possibly as much as a ory-year span beween hZeus and hAp. Daes or individual hymns have been as-
signed by hree differen crieria: (1) inernal sylisic consideraions; (2) evensor people menioned in he hymns or which an exernal dae can be esablished; and (3) exual borrowings by or rom Callimachus or sel-reerenialiy beween one and anoher o Callimachus’ poems. All hree are problemaic, bu (1) and (3) especially so, since hey ofen are based on scholarly preerences raher han demonsrable acs.
Inernal sylisic crieria include argumens abou mauriy o syle and more objecive comparison o merical phenomena. Te crierion o mauriy o syle,
when applied o his or ha hymn, ounders on he ac ha much o Callima-chus’ ruly maure work, books 3-4 o he Aetia, is now oo ragmenary o un- derpin he discussion. Argumens rom predicable merical eaures have similar drawbacks. Alhough Callimachus has clearly defined merical preerences or
boh his hexameers and his elegiac couples, he corpus o he hexameer hymns is only 942 lines; he now ragmenary Hecale would have been a leas as long, and here were oher hexameer and elegiac poems ha have no survived. Tereore, he merical daa rom he hymns are only parial and insufficien o gauge he validiy o apparen rends. G. Kaibel’s (1877: 327) argumen or an
16. I ollow he scholarly consensus (bu noe ha Clayman 2014: 146–58, ollowing Huss 2008, argues ha he Berenice in quesion is Berenice II).
17. For a recen biography o his queen, see Clayman 2014.
Introduction 17
order based on increasing presence o he bucolic dieresis, or example, resuls in an ordering o hDem, hArt, hAth, hZeus, hAp, hDelos. However, he apparen linear progression includes a large gap beween he firs five (bucolic dieresis
omited once in every 11, 13, 17, 32, 40 lines) and hDelos (omited once in 108 lines) ha does no fi well wih (2) exernal crieria. I exernal crieria are acored in, he early dae or hZeus would require he firs hree hymns o have been writen beore or around 280 and all six o have been composed by c. 270. While in principle here is nohing wrong wih his early assignmen o he hymns, apar rom he crierion o increasing bucolic diereses, here is litle o suppor i. Moreover, observaion o a differen merical phenomenon, incidence o spondaic lines, yields a differen order: he requency decreases rom
hZeus (15 per cen) o hDelos (3 per cen), hough his oo is unlikely o corre- lae wih composiional order.
Exernal evens provide a slighly more reliable ool, hough his crierion also suffers rom ediorial subjeciviy. O he six hymns, hose eauring gods, hZeus, hAp, and hDelos, all menion conemporary kings. While many scholars have dismissed hese reerences in hZeus and hAp as convenional and see no need o ideniy which king lies behind he remark (see, e.g., Williams p.1), he reerence in hDelos is undeniably specific, and his ac would miliae agains
hese oher reerences being generic. Furher, wheher a poem was ever per-ormed or simply circulaed, is issuance, ipso facto , mus have coincided wih he reign o one or anoher monarch whose exisence would have condiioned a local audience’s response, a response o which Callimachus could hardly have
been unaware, since he capialized on i in hDelos. Tus when he Hymn to Zeus draws an explici parallel beween he swifness wih which Zeus accomplishes his deeds and “our king” (86: μετρ μεδοντι), he ideniy o he siting monarch will necessarily orm par o he recepion. Allusions in he ex, in ac,
poin o wo: according o Jusin (13.4.10) “Egyp . . . ell o Polemy by lo”( Ptolemaeo Aegyptus . . . sorte evenit ), an even o which Callimachus seemingly alludes in lines 62–64 (Carrière 1969). He declares he sory ha Zeus and his
brohers drew los or heir domains o be an implausible ficion, which in urn undermines any ale ha Polemy I go Egyp by chance as opposed o capabil- iy or conques. Bu a ew lines beore (58–59) Callimachus claimed ha Zeus’s siblings “alhough hey were older, did no begrudge you heaven o hold as your alloted home.” Tis is a unique and poined commen on he myhological division bu would no apply o Polemy I. I does o Philadelphus. Te younges o Soer’s sons, he acceded o he hrone while his older brohers lived. Te good-
will among hem did no las much beyond Soer’s deah, which gives a narrow window or he allusion o be appropriae and hus or he composiion o he hymn (roughly 285–280). Moreover, he explici discussion o youh, growh, and coming-o-age makes sense or Polemy II, who would have been 23 a he
Introduction 19
II, or a he very leas menion o two rulers. (Callimachus, afer all, is no shy abou menioning his Cyrenean queen in he Aetia.) Following Laronde (1987: 362), Cameron suggess raher ha he king is Magas, an idenificaion srenghened
by he ac ha Magas was he eponymous pries o Cyrenean Apollo, and ha Callimachus apparenly celebraes Magas in a now quie ragmenary elegy (r. 388 P.). A scenario ha would accoun or he single king and he srong emphasis on marriage is ha he poem was writen beore Magas’ deah in 250, a he ime when his daugher was berohed o Euergees, bu beore hey became he ruling couple in 246. A urher indicaion o dae may be he reerence o ζωστρες (85). I he word was seleced o recall he cul ile Apollo Zoster and his sancuary in Atica, he ac ha Zoser was orified a he ime o he Chre-
monidean war (267–261), when he Polemaic empire was closely allied wih Ahens, would locae he hymn no earlier han 267. However, hese argumens are speculaive; he daing o his hymn is by no means secure.
Argumens predicaed on he assumpion ha similariies beween he sphragis o his hymn and he Aetia prologue require hem o have been writen a he same ime are no cogen. Despie he ac ha boh passages conain rebarbaive saemens abou poeic pracice, i he Aetia prologue is lae (afer 246), here is no inheren reason why Callimachus could no have writen he hymn wih
is sphragis much earlier. Apollo as Callimachus’ paron in boh exs should noaffec he dae: he was he diviniy who oversaw poery, and he was he paron deiy o Callimachus’ home ciy, Cyrene.
None o he hree hymns addressed o goddesses (Aremis, Ahena, Deme- er) menions conemporary queens, hough Callimachus does so in he Aetia. A simple inerence rom his is ha hese hymns were writen when here were no queens—Polemy II married his siser, his second wie, beween 279 and 274,
bu afer her deah in 270 he did no remarry. Egyp had no queen unil Euer-
gees married Berenice II in 246 . Tere are, however, good reasons o sus-pec emale members o he royal house may sand behind he goddesses in hese hymns.
Te very close srucural parallels beween hDelos and hArt sugges ha hey are conceived as a pair (despie he differen reamen o bucolic dieresis). Nohing precludes he Hymn to Artemis being writen well beore or well afer hDelos , bu he ac ha he hymn ends wih so much atenion o Ephesus poins o a conemporary conex. Ephesus was closely conneced o Arsinoe II. When she was sixeen years old, she was firs married o Lysimachus, he Diadoch
who ruled Trace and Asia Minor. Te marriage lased unil Lysimachus’ deah. During he period when he conrolled Ephesus, he buil a new own o he wes o he Aremision, which he named Arsinoe, hough he name did no long survive his deah (Srabo 14.1.21). Te connecion o Apollo wih Polemy II is over in hDelos; hereore i is worh considering wheher Arsinoe II is o be idenified
wih Aremis, via her close associaion wih Ephesus.19 I hDelos can only have been writen afer 275, hArt migh well have been earlier, belonging o he period o her marriage o Lysimachus and beore his deah (Ragone 2006: 74–77).20 I
he poem was writen afer he deah o Arsinoe II, a suiable ime period would be beween 262, when Ephesus came under Polemaic conrol, and 255, when i revered o he Seleucids. A decade laer he relaionship was no so posiive. In he 250s Berenice Syra, he siser o Polemy III, was married o Aniochus II,
who died in Ephesus in 246 under dubious circumsances, while Berenice Syra hersel was murdered shorly hereafer. Polemy III hen esablished a garrison a Ephesus, and i served as his base agains he oher dynass or he duraion o his reign (Hölbl 2001: Appendix 262–246 ).
No exernal evidence exiss or daing he las wo hymns, which also seem o have been a ighly consruced pair, despie he ac ha hey are in di- eren meers. For he daing o he Hymn to Athena we mus urn o (3) exual borrowings eiher by or rom Callimachus. hese are o limied reliabiliy
because he relaive chronologies or poes wriing in early Alexandria are no secure (see pp. 7–8). Sill, wih respec o hAth 2, i seems clear ha he phrase ρτι φρυασσομενν was subsequenly imiaed in an epigram ( AP 5.202) a- ribued eiher o Asclepiades o Samos or Posidippus o Pella, in which wo
hetairai engage in sexual comba. he overly sexual epigram dicaes he di-recion o he borrowing: despie he repressed sexual energy ha surrounds Callimachus’ porrai o Ahena, allusion o he explici sexual behavior o prosiues is unlikely o belong o he hymn. In he epigram Ahena’s mares
become “cols o he evening,” i.e., he young men being “ridden” by he con- ending hetairai. O he wo epigrammaiss, he only secure evidence or daing Asclepiades comes rom he 270s (Sens 2011: xxvi), which would dicae an even earlier dae or he hymn. I he auhor o he epigram was
Posidippus, he was he recipien o a proxeny decree in 263 or 262 a her-mon in Aeolia. His recenly discovered collecion o epigrams celebraes he equesrian vicories o Berenice I, Arsinoe II, and Berenice Syra, bu apparenly no Berenice II, whose vicory a he Nemean games in 245 or 241 was he subjec o Callimachus’ Victory of Berenice. Cameron (1995: 241–45) has argued ha he epigram in which he imiaion occurred was a poem or Bilis- iche, he misress o Polemy II, who won Olympic vicories in chario racing
19. A signe ring rom Egyp seems o show Aremis wih he eaures o Arsinoe (see Prom- mer 2001: 38–39), and coin issues rom Ephesus show a head ha appears o be Arsinoe on he obverse, wih Aremis’ bow and quiver on he reverse (see Müller 2009: 345–48 and or illusraions, 451).
20. Meillier 1979: 114 objecs o an early dae or he hymn because Callimachus does no allude o he desrucion ha he ciy suffered around 290. I was rebuil beween 287 and 281.
Introduction 21
in 268 and 264, and i he is correc, hAth mus precede 264. However, Sens (2011: 235–36) disagrees, suggesing raher ha Posidippus may be indulg- ing in insoucian sel-reerenialiy, since one o his own equesrian epigrams
celebraes he riumph o Berenice I in a chario vicory over a much earlier emale conender, Cynisca o Spara (87 A-B). Cerainy is impossible, bu i Posidippus is he auhor, a dae or he hymn in he 260s is he mos rea- sonable guess, and he borrowing ino a conex o horse racing migh have resuled rom he implici associaion o he Ahena o he hymn wih one o he Polemaic royal ladies who had recenly won an equesrian vicory in a Panhellenic game.
Bulloch (p. 41 and noes ad loc.) argues ha in hAth Callimachus imiaes Te-
ocrius’ epihalamium or Helen and Menelaus ( Id. 18), specifically 22–24: μμες δ’ α πσαι συνομικες, ας δρμος ωτς | χρισαμναις νδριστ παρ’ Ερταο
λοετρος, | τετρκις ξκοντα κραι . . . (“We are all age-maes, who have his place or running, having anoined ourselves in manly ashion by he bahing-places o he Euroas, our imes sixy maidens . . . ”). A hAth 23–30 Ahena runs a δς ξκοντα course along he Euroas (παρ’ Ερτ) and anoins hersel wih manly olive oil (ρσεν αιον . . . χρεται). I he direcion o he allusion is correc, we may be able o make some headway on a dae. Some scholars have hough ha
Id. 18 was writen or he marriage o Polemy II and Arsinoe II (beween 279and 274). I so, he hymn should be laer, and i a emale Polemy is o be imag- ined behind he chario-driving Ahena, hen he previous associaion o he language wih Arsinoe would make her he mos likely candidae, and he hymn could be no laer han 270. Tese assumpions abou he prioriy o Teocrius’ poem (and is relaionship o a royal marriage) do no have he ring o inevia-
biliy, bu hey do fi he radiional chronologies or he wo possible auhors o he epigram.
Te Hymn to Demeter
canno be daed by exernal evidence. However, Phi-loera, he siser o Arsinoe II and Polemy II, was closely associaed wih Deme- er in cul, as we learn rom he Ektheosis of Arsinoe. Te Ektheosis mus have been composed a he ime o Arsinoe’s deah in 270, and in ha poem Philoera is already dead. I hDem has Philoera in he background (or as he hymnic preex), i
would have been composed afer her deah and deificaion, bu probably no oo much laer, hus probably beore he Ektheosis. Moreover, here are disincive
verbal echoes beween he Ektheosis and hDem. Lines 45–46 o he ormer read: Δηος πο νεισομν σο δ’ ν π [υστος], | δαμοσιν ρπαγμα . . . (“[by Phi- loera] having reurned rom visiing Deo. She was unaware o you [sc. Arsinoe II], O carried off [i.e., in deah] by he gods”). Tese same wo rare words appear a hDem 9: ρπαγμας κ’ πυστα μετστιχεν χνια κρας. Ten a 47–48 Philoera urges her companion o si upon he lofy (π[τ]αν) peak and gaze (αγασαι),
while hDem 3–4 urges he ββαλοι . . . μηδ’ ψθεν αγσσησθε. D’ Alessio p. 34
argues, I hink correcly, ha he direcion o hese verbal reminiscences canno be deermined, bu ha boh poems probably belong o he end o he 270s.
Finally, Apollonius alludes o hAth and hDem in a way ha suggess he received
hem as a pair. His narraive o Phineus (2.178–93, 444–47) parallels ha o iresias, while he neighboring ale o Paraebius (2.456–89), who suffered because his aher had chopped down an oak agains he proess o is residen Hama- dryad, is oo close o ha o Erysichhon o be a coincidence. Poeic economy
would dicae ha he allusive direcion runs rom Callimachus o Apollonius, and no ha Callimachus se ou o wrie wo disinc hymns in response o
Apollonius’ ex.21 Sill, his does no help wih daing, since he daing o he Argonautica is around 240, or around he ime ha we have our las daable evi-
dence or Callimachus’ lie. Bu i may have implicaions or he hymn collecion as a whole. Paired hymns sugges a collecion by Callimachus, no a laer edior.
Language and Style
Callimachus composed his poery in hird-cenury Norh Arica, in Cyrene or Alexandria or in boh locaions. As a Cyrenean, Callimachus would
have been a Doric speaker, and Cyreneans in Alexandria, i early immigra-ion ino he res o Polemaic Egyp is an accurae indicaor, were likely o have been 30–40 per cen o he ciy’s naive Greek populaion. In addiion many immigrans rom oher locaions would have reained heir regional dialec preerences,22 alhough he official ciy and he army would have used a koine ha was an admixure o Atic and Ionic.23 I is also imporan o noe ha Homer and Homeric language would have occupied a unique place in he consciousness o hose who possessed an educaion sufficien or enrance
ino Polemaic adminisraion. Te prevailing educaional sysem dependedheavily on Homer, which guaraneed ha Homeric Greek isel uncioned as a lierary koine or all Greek speakers, whaever heir individual dialecal affiliaions. Tus i is unsurprising ha in his wriing o hymns, Callimachus adaps a language and dicion based primarily on Homer. Abou 80 per cen
21. Bulloch pp. 41–42 argues ha Callimachus imiaes Apollonius on he basis o he placemen o he procliic ο beore he main caesura (only a hDem 103, bu hree imes in Apol- lonius, including he passage in quesion, 2.444). Tere is no doub ha one poe imiaed he oher, bu he value o his merical evidence is quesionable because here are our imes as many exan hexameers o Apollonius. Bulloch does no acor in he Paraebius vignete.
22. See, e.g., Teoc. 15.92, where he ladies asser heir righ o “speak Peloponnesian.”
23. See Colvin 2011 or he consiuion o various koinai in he early Hellenisic world; see Parsons 2011 or Callimachus’ koinai.
Introduction 23
o his vocabulary occurred previously in Homer; in his he is no unique—he Homeric hymns also have a raio o 80 per cen o heir vocabulary coinciden
wih previous epic o 20 per cen ha is new. Pervasive epic eaures include
vocabulary, orms, dicion, and occasionally synax, all o which conribue o an amosphere o inheried seriousness and link he new composiions o a a- miliar lierary pas. Te opening o he Hymn to Zeus provides an example o how Callimachus achieves his:
Ζηνς οι τ κεν ο παρ σπονδσιν εδειν λον θεν ατν, ε μγαν, αν νακτα,
Πηλαγνων ατρα, δικασπον Ορανδσι;
πς κα νιν, Δικταον εσομεν Λυκαον; 5 ν δοι μα θυμς, πε γνος μφριστον. Ζε, σ μν δαοισιν ν ορεσ φασι γενσθαι, Ζε, σ δ’ ν ρκαδ·
Te underlined iems are eiher common Homeric words or orms (κεν, -δσιν, -οισιν, λον, αν), words ha occur requenly bu no exclusively in Homer (εδειν, ναξ, θυμς, ορεσι), or rarely bu in significan conexs (ν
δοι, δικασπον, μφριστον). Even words ha are no paricularly marked as Homeric ake on a Homeric idiom: or example, φασι and γενσθαι are hardly exclusive o epic, ye wih φασι γενσθαι Callimachus has writen a phrase ha occurs our imes in he Iliad and Odyssey a verse end. Αν and νακτα never occur ogeher in Homer, bu each word does occur several imes in Homer in he merical posiion in which Callimachus places hem.
Callimachus and Homer
Callimachus’ pracice wih respec o Homeric language may be caegorized in our disinc ways:
1. I provides he linguisic background and sonoriies ha connec he poems o a amiliar, collecive Greek culural experience, an experience reinorced by he educaional sysem and he pracice o public recia- ion o Homer. Tus i allows he poe o posiion his hymnic subjecs, gods or a new place, wihin (and a imes agains) he epic pas.
2. Te developing ineres in he saus o Homer’s exs in early Hellenisic Alexandria mean ha numerous Homeric expressions were quesioned or debaed; Callimachus’ ex, hereore, will occasionally reflec eiher
his undersanding o a dispued Homeric passage or his own deermi- naion o a orm.24 In hZeus 11–13, or example, Callimachus describes he sacred place where Rhea gives birh, afer which copious rivers flow:
νθεν χρος ερς, οδ τ μιν κεχρημνον Εειθυης ρπετν οδ γυν πιμσγεται . . .
Te phrase οδ τ μιν occurs seven imes in he Iliad and Odyssey. A Il. 17.749–51 in paricular i describes he sudden flow o rivers:
ς τε κα φθμων ποταμν εγειν εθρασχει, φαρ δ τε πσι ον πεδονδε τθησι πλζων· οδ τ μιν σθνε ηγνσι οντες·
[a wooded ridge] which checks he grievous sreams o mighy rivers, and sraighway or all o hem urns he flow o wan- dering over he plain; nor do hey, hough flowing in srengh,
break hrough i (μιν) a all.
Bu in his passage Hellenisic scholars debaed he exac meaning o οδ τ μιν. According o a scholium on he passage, Arisophanes o Byzanium ob-
jeced o μιν and proposed emending o οδ τι μν. Alhough earlier han Arisophanes, Callimachus’ use o he phrase οδ τ μιν in he conex o flowing rivers does seem o have signaled his preerred reading o Homer.25
3. Homeric dicion provided a number o predicable derivaives and orms upon which Callimachus was able o model his coinages. For
example, hAth 91 has δρκας, rom δρξ, δορκς. Te usual orm is δορκς, δορκδος, bu Callimachus has apparenly modeled his noun on anoher Homeric word or deer, πρξ, προκς, ha has he double
προκς. (Te varian ζρξ occurs in hArt 97.)26 Tese neologisms are occasionally discussed in he noes o each poem, bu since his maerial is much more horoughly handled in he commenaries on individual hymns, ineresed readers will be direced o he relevan ediions.
24. For Callimachus’ inerpreaion o Homeric words see Rengakos 1992; or he Hellenisic poes’ views on he ex o Homer see Rengakos 1993.
25. Tis argumen is based in par on McLennan p. 41n12.
26. Tis example is based on Bulloch pp. 201–3nn91–92.
Introduction 25
4. Scholars have requenly commened on Callimachus’ predilecion or rare or hapax words in Homer, which hey someimes characerize as re- cherché or even as a display o learned obscuriy. In ac, he Homeric
conex o such marked borrowings almos always lends a significan inerexual resonance o Callimachus’ own ex, as i he earlier poe’s
voice could be heard in he disance. μφριστον, quoed above, provides an example. Te word occurs wice, in Il. 23.382 and 527, in reerence o charios racing in a dead hea. In he firs occurrence he ie is broken by he inervenion o Apollo. In hZeus someone—he god?—inerrups o
break he dead hea a line 8. O course, Callimachus does no resric his specific ype o inerexual voice o Homer. He appropriaes Hesiod, he
Homeric hymns, lyric, ragedy, and even prose wriers in a similar way.
Other Linguistic Influences
In addiion, Callimachus had a his disposal a wide variey o previous poeic models ha came wih generically marked dialecs. His linguisic exure is en- riched wih words amiliar rom he lyric poes (which may be Doric), paricu-
larly in hAp and hDelos; ragedy (which may be Atic or Doric), paricularly in hespeeches in hDelos and he insered sory o iresias in hAth; and laer epiciss like Animachus o Colophon and Callimachus’ immediae poeic predecessor, Philias o Cos, who wroe in boh hexameers and elegiacs. Very ofen borrowing a unique word or phrase rom an earlier poe brings wih i specific poeic connoaions, hough, as is ofen he case wih he lyric poes and laer poes like
Animachus and Philias, he ragmenary naure o a predecessor may obscure he ull exen o he borrowing.
In conras o he amiliariy o Homer and his linguisic pracice, a veryhigh proporion o Callimachus’ non-Homeric words are no ound in previous poery. Many occurred previously only in prose, ohers have been ound in conemporary documens and he koine; some describe objecs or evens or which
we have no oher poeic esimony (hough i may well have exised); some are inroduced or a paricular effec; some words are new coinages. Since so litle poery has survived beween he end o he fifh cenury and Callimachus’ ime, i is no easy o assess he exen o which words appearing in his exs or he firs ime are ruly novel, belong o a now los poeic subsraum, or he koine. For example, a hDem 110 he manuscrips read α λουρον, which he scholias glosses as “ca,” bu he papyrus has μουριν (which is now generally acceped). Hesychius glosses he unique word (μουρις) as “whie-ailed”; did Callima- chus coin i, was i colloquial Greek, or simply unatesed in earlier lieraure?
Callimachus’ lexicon has been well sudied: F. Lapp (1965: 155–72) liss eighy-six neologisms or varians o previously known words ha occur only in Callimachus’ hymns and anoher niney-six ha firs occur here. An in-
novaor, Callimachus coined new nouns or alernaive orms in -τειρα (e.g., ρτειρα, πιθυμτειρα, θηρτειρα); -τς (e.g., ρπακτς, γελαστς, διωκτς); -ς (e.g., μβολαδς, λεχως, σαρωνς); -η (e.g., κυνηλαση, υηθενη); adjecives in -σιος and -τιος (e.g., πιδασιος, εστιος, πανυσττιος), maro- and paro- nymics in -ις (e.g., Λητωις, Πελασγις), as well as evocaive compounds like οφνος, “awn-slaying” o Briomaris (hArt 190), μουνγληνος, “one-eyed” o he Cyclops (hArt 53), or ψευδοπτωρ, “alse aher,” addressed o Poseidon
by riopas (hDem 98). While many o hese may have been coined o allow
greaer merical flexibiliy, hey simulaneously impar a sense o linguisic in- novaion and reshness o he oherwise radiional Homeric language.
A final aspec o Callimachus’ language has been his influence on laer poes: laer epigrammaiss, Dionysius he Periegee,27 Nonnus, Oppian, and riphio- dorus clearly imiaed his vocabulary and merical refinemens (see De Seani and Magnelli 2011). Tere is, o course, also considerable linguisic overlap wih conemporaries like Teocrius, Araus, Asclepiades, Posidippus, and Apollonius,
bu wih hese poes i is much harder o decide he direcion o he borrowing.
Callimachus’ Doric
Te firs our hymns are writen in epic Ionic and dacylic hexameer; hDem is in hexameers as well. However, hAth and hDem are writen in he Doric dialec, hough epic-Ionic orms also occur. Doric dialecs were spoken in Wes Greek ciy-saes like
Argos and Spara, and as a resul o colonizaion hey were ound in Sicily and Souh
Ialy, Cree, Cos, Rhodes, Tera, and Arican Cyrene.
28
Ruijgh (1984) has arguedha he Doric o Teocrius (and Callimachus) refleced he dialec as spoken by Cyrenean immigrans o Alexandria, bu his heory has no been widely embraced (see Parsons 2011: 142–43). Mos scholars believe ha Callimachus did no adhere o any one Doric dialec in hese hymns, bu employed wha is usually described as “lierary” Doric, by incorporaing he mos recognizable eaures o Doric speakers: long α or η; -τι in hird person verbal endings; -μες or -μεν; ahemaic infiniives in -μεν; λς or θς; πρτος or πρτος; τνος or ()κενος; -οκα or -οτε (e.g., ποκα = ποτε); μστα or μσφα; -ευ as a conracion o Ionic -εο; -ω or -ου in masculine
27. J. L. Lighoo’s 2014 commenary now makes he ull exen o Dionysius’ deb o Cal- limachus accessible, on whom see her general index s.v. Callimachus.
28. For characerisics o individual Doric dialecs see Buck §§242–73.
he ouside, he common nouns wihin. Beween he second and hird quesion anoher se o doubles occurs: Δικταον or Λυκαον (again similariy o sounds),
varied as δαοισιν ν ορεσ or ν ρκαδ in lines 6–7. In line 4 he wo adjecives
all on eiher side o he verb (Δικταον εσομεν Λυκαον), while in line 5 he wo cenral nouns, θυμς, γνος, are flanked, now by variaions on doub, ν δοι, μφριστον.
Sound is a paricularly imporan eaure o he hymns: a he opening o hZeus he ε o εδειν is repeaed in he ε μγαν, αν νακτα o he nex line and comes back in 4: εσομεν (hus “eernal” is buil ino he ac o singing).
Anaphora and oher ypes o repeiion are common in hymns in general, and Callimachus uses i in his hymns very requenly and o grea effec. A orm o
he god’s name, Ζηνς, Ζε, opens lines 1, 6, and 7, he las wo wih anaphora and similariy o sounds (paronomasia) in Ζε, σ μν, Ζε, σ δ’ ν. Similarly, noe he opening o he firs wo lines o hAp: οον τπωνος, οα δ’ ον, and hroughou ha hymn he requen play on Apollo and orms o πολς (see noes ad loc.). In hArt 6–18, he young goddess’s demands are consruced around a repeaed δς μοι, “gimme.” In hDelos 70–75 he fligh o he landscape rom Leo is puncuaed wih repeaed φεγε. HZeus 55 opens and closes wih similar sounds: καλ . . . ξευ, καλ . . . -ιε Ζε. A hAp 101–2 Apollo rapidly shoos his
arrows: ον π’ | βων.In addiion o his aural effecs Callimachus’ word order ofen creaes word picures ha reinorce sense, a phenomenon more requen in Lain han in Greek poery. A hAp 54: δ κε μουνοτκος διδυμητκος αψα γνοιτο, he
juxaposiion o he wo rare nouns (μουνοτκος, διδυμητκος) shows us he one “suddenly” becoming he oher. (Tis is also a good illusraion o he gen- eraive skills o Callimachus’ lexical imaginaion.) A hAp 88–89: ο δ’ οπω
πηγσι Κρης δναντο πελσσαι | Δωριες, he Dorians are separaed as ar as
possible rom he “sreams o Cyre,” o which hey were no ye able o drawnear (δναντο πελσσαι). A hDelos 91–93: …φις μγας, ’ τι κενο | θηρον ανογνειον π Πειστοο καθρπον | Παρνησν νιφεντα περιστφει ννα κκλοις, he grea serpen (φις μγας) wih is nine coils (ννα κκλοις) sreches over hree lines as i encloses snowy Parnassus (Παρνησν νιφεντα). A hArt 192: δ’ τ μν λασσιν π δρυσ κρπτετο νμφη, he nymph (Briomaris) is posiioned a he end o he line, hiding under he shrubs, as ar away as possible rom Minos (named a he end o 190), who pursues her. A hDem 120–21: χς α τν καθον λευκτριχες πποι γοντι | τσσαρες, he anomalous posiion o he objec (τν καθον) wihin he aricle-noun group (α . . . πποι) creaes he word picure by locaing Demeer’s baske behind he horses ha lead i orward.
Callimachus was a maser o polyphony. In he hymns he deploys a wide and someimes decepive range o poeic voices. On he surace he non-mimeic
Introduction 29
hymns (hZeus, hArt, and hDelos) seem o have one auhoriaive narraing I, who inroduces he divine subjec (πς κα νιν…εσομεν; ρτεμιν…μνομεν, τν ερν, θυμ,…εσεις | Δον) and relaes his/her birh and deeds. However,
here are requen inrusions o oher, someimes ambiguous voices: in hZeus 8, or example, who uters he saemen “Creans always lie”? Is i he poe? Zeus himsel? Or he ancien sage Epimenides o whom he line was atribued in aniquiy? Te heavy borrowing o specific language rom Hesiod ha leads up o he quoaion o T. 96 (κ δ Δις βασιλες) a hZeus 79 makes i seem as i Hesiod has inruded ino his successor’s poem. Te exchange o Aremis and Zeus a he opening o hArt seems o move direcly ou o a Homeric scene; he exchange o Leo and Peneius in hDelos is colored wih ragic language, paricularly ha o
Euripides; Apollo, speaking rom he womb in hDelos , assumes a vaic persona. Te siuaion o he mimeic hymns (hAp, hAth, hDem) is even more complex. In all hree he speaker is anonymous and his/her connecion o he rie is no rans- paren. Is here one narraor in hAp who exhors he unclean o depar beore he god appears, who exhors he chorus o sing, hen narraes he god’s biography? Or does he speaker exhor he chorus, who hen sing he lines ha ollow as a paean o he god? In hDem he narraor is a woman (see 124); in hAth he gender is ambiguous. As a resul, considerable scholarship has been devoed o sudying he
narraive voice in Callimachus (or recen reamens see Morrison 2007: 105–78,Fanuzzi 2011).
Te Hexameter Hymns
Five hymns (hZeus, hAp, hArt, hDelos, hDem) are writen in dacylic hexameer, he meer o Homeric epic, which was said o express a dignified and elevaed
syle and o be more oleran han ohers o rare words and meaphor (Aris. Poet. 1459b32–36). By he hird cenury hexameer had exended is generic reach o include didacic, hymns, and even bucolic, and as he wriing (as opposed o oral perormance) o poery came o assume greaer imporance, Homer’s rhyhmical and prosodic pracices were disilled and refined, a endency ha reached is apex in he hexameers o Callimachus.
Homer avails himsel o weny-wo differen arrangemens o dacyls and spondees wihin his hexameer line, Callimachus resrics himsel o seven,
which grealy increases rhyhmic regulariy. He also smoohs ou he hexameer line by limiing he number o shor words, incidence o hiaus, and unusual rhyhms. Callimachus’ verses eel ligher han Homer’s, an effec achieved by a slighly higher average number o dacyls per line, bu mainly by careul manage- men o he placemen o spondees. For example, Callimachus ends o avoid wo spondees in succession. I we exclude he final meron, he has a disinc
preerence or lines wih our dacyls + one spondee, and he never wries a line wih our spondees.30
A Homeric hexameer is generally undersood o be organized ino a series o our unis, called cola; hese are marked off by word boundaries and/or semanic
pauses. 31
Colon-breaks occur mos requenly a caesurae, diereses, and verse end, bu addiional locaions o colon-breaks, especially in he firs hal o he line, yielded a number o uneven cola, and no all lines are cleanly divisible ino our. Callima- chus epiomized he endency, ound in oher Hellenisic poes, o regularize he dimensions o he Homeric colon, which resuls in considerable resricion o his sense-pauses o cerain locaions in he line (see below or examples) and o words (or word-groups) wih specific merical shapes wihin he hexameer line (called he inner meric). Tis has generaed wha Fanuzzi calls “a nework o ‘prohibiions’ o
word end a various poins in Callimachus’ verse, which were idenified by scholars(paricularly) in he second hal o he nineeenh cenury.”32
| | | — — ———— | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
1 3½ 9½7½5½1½ 2 3 6 8 9 10 11 124 5 7
1st metron 2nd metron 3rd metron 4th metron 5th metron 6th metron| | | | |
1. Callimachus usually resrics his sense-pauses o cerain locaions in he line: a 2, 3, 5, 5½, 8, and 12 or verse-end. For example, in hZeus 4: πς
30. aken rom Mineur pp. 35–36, hese numbers are expressed as percenages, excluding he final meron. Tey have been adjused and rounded.
31. Te idea originaed wih H. Fränkel and has been modified by subsequen scholars, see Kirk’s helpul discussion o Homer (1985: 18–23).
32. Fanuzzi and Huner 2004: 36. For hese “prohibiions,” see below.
33. For comparison o word shape and meric posiion organized by hexameer poe, see O’Neill 1942: 156; Hagel 2004 has refined O’Neill by adjusing or he presence o encliics and procliics, which should be reaed as a uni wih he word o which hey adhere.
Homer Homeric Hymns Callimachus
4 dacyls + 1 spondee 42% 42% 49%
3 dacyls + 2 spondees 30% 28% 25%
2 dacyls + 3 spondees 8% 9% 3%
Introduction 31
κα νιν, / Δικταον / εσομεν / Λυκαον; he colon breaks occur a 3, 5 ½, 8, 12. Te firs and las colon breaks coincide wih a pause in sense. Four-
word lines like hZeus 3: Πηλαγνων / ατρα, / δικασπον / Ορανδσι
are he exreme example o his endency. 2. Hexameers usually have a main word end (caesura), ofen wih a sense
break, in he hird meron, eiher a 5 (called masculine) or a 5½ (called eminine). All o Callimachus’ hexameers have a caesura in he hird meron, and he showed a marked preerence or he eminine, which occurs in 74 per cen o his lines in comparison o 57 per cen in Homer.34
3. Coincidence o word end wih he end o a meron was normally avoided excep in cerain locaions: i was requen a he end o he ourh meron
(8, called he bucolic dieresis). Tis pause occurs in 63 per cen o Cal- limachus’ lines, in comparison o 47 per cen in Homer.
4. Spondees in the ourth metron are rare; when hey do occur, Callima- chus does no allow a word end o coincide wih he end o he meron (his is called Naeke’s Law ; or an example see hZeus 1 below).
5. Alhough spondees in the fifh metron (σπονδειζοντες) became a ashion in some wriers o hexameer poery (or example, hey occur in 22 per cen o Animachus’ verses, and in 24 per cen o Eraoshenes’),
hey occur in only 7 per cen o Callimachus’ and wih considerable vari-aion beween hymns. When Callimachus does wrie σπονδειζοντες, he ourh meron will always be a dacyl, and ofen he firs our mera are dacyls, which again alleviaes he weigh o he verse. He preers our- syllable words or occasionally six-syllable words o end hese lines. Like oher Hellenisic poes, he someimes wries wo σπονδειζοντες in succession (hZeus 46–47, hArt 97–98, 170–71, 237–38, 251–52; hDelos 65–66) and once hree in succession (hArt 222–34).35
6. Callimachus shows a sric pracice wih respec oelision. He almos alwaysavoids elision a cerain posiions in he line: a 3½ (called Meyer’s bridge); a he caesura (5, 5½); a 7½ (called Hermann’s bridge); and a he bucolic dieresis (8, called Naeke’s bridge). Preposiions, adverbs, correlaives, conjuncions, and paricles ha end in a shor vowel are normally elided;
bu elision o endings on nouns, adjecives, and verbs is ar less common.36
7. Callimachus does no inroduce hiatus beween mera. Wihin he meron hiaus is normally allowed only afer or beore preposiions in
34. Wes 1982: 36 (Homer, recalibraed as a percenage) and 154 (Callimachus).
35. See Hollis pp. 16–18; he observes ha Romans probably go heir ase or σπονδειζοντες rom poes like Euphorion, no Callimachus.
36. See Silva Sanchez 2003: especially 75, 77–78.
anasrophe (bu see hArt 176, 233, 237). Words ha in Homer appear in hiaus because hey originally began wih a digamma are someimes,
bu no always, reaed he same way in Callimachus (especially οι).
8. Oher resricions, named or he scholars who firs observed hem, are: Meyer’s First Law (words o he shape × rarely end in he second meron; he excepions are hAp 41 and hDem 91); Meyer’s Second Law (words o he shape are usually avoided beore a caesura); Giseke’s Law (words o he shape × never end wih he second meron); Hilberg’s Law (a word break rarely occurs afer a spondaic second meron); Naeke’s Law (a word break does no ollow a spondaic ourh meron); Bulloch’s Law (a word

callimachus the hymns

Documents